Publication Ethics

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Callosum Neurology Journal (CNJ) committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. CNJ adopt the ethics from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), this journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.

 

II. PEER REVIEWERS

Peer reviewers are required to provide recommendations to help authors to improve the quality of published manuscripts and editor in determining the editorial policy, in accordance with their respective expertise.

  1. Initial steps: Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements), getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal. It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing (i.e., is a review of raw data expected?).
  2. Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others (e.g. see COPE Case 14-06: Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality). Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal (e.g. see COPE Case 11-29: Reviewer asks trainee to review manuscript). The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts. 
  1. Standard Objectivity: Peer reviewers must take hold on the principles of objectivity and avoiding personal criticism against the author of the manuscript during the review process. All comments must be accompanied by clear and supportive suggestions.
  1. Reference Clarity: Peer Reviewers are recommended to provide information to the authors of the research with the literature, or relevant case studies which have not been cited, having a substantial similarity or overlap with the manuscripts reviewed.
  1. Conflicts of Interest: Ensure you declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests. If you are unsure about a potential competing interest that may prevent you from reviewing, do raise this. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. If you are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal 
  1. Timeliness: It is courteous to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame, even if you cannot undertake the review. If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you are able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame. Always inform the journal promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfil your original agreement or if you require an extension. If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations
  1. Bias and competing interests: It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal and seek advice. While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is rescinded. Similarly, notify the journal as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process. In the case of double-blind review, if you suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential competing or conflict of interest.

 

III. EDITOR

  1. Publication Decision : Publication decision making the published manuscript as the liability of the editor based on the policies and guidelines of the editorial board as well as based on compliance with legal requirements, such as not containing any information that harm others or containing slander, copyright disputes, and plagiarism. Communication with other editors or peer reviewers is acceptable to support the decision-making of the publication of the manuscript. Issuance decisions cannot be made by an editor based on personal considerations.
  1. Fairness: Editors must be able to evaluate a manuscript based on its scientific content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and belief, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.
  1. Confidentiality: The editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct. Unless the journal is operating an open peer-review system and/or reviewers have agreed to disclose their names, the editor must protect reviewers’ identities. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  1. Conflicts of Interest
  • The editor is not allowed to use the unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances.
  • The information and ideas contained in the text which are in the peer-review process is confidential and will not be distributed or used for personal benefit.
  • In case of having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution or company involved in publishing, the editor is not permitted to evaluate the related texts. Thus, another editor board member should be involved in determining the issuance of the manuscript.
  • Editors must ensure that all parties involved in the review process and the publication of the manuscript declare a conflict of interest in the publication of a manuscript, as well as make corrections if a conflict of interest is revealed after the manuscript is published. If necessary, the editor can take appropriate action, such as publishing editorial statements or retraction of the manuscript.
  • The share of non peer-reviewed written by the editor should be differentiated and easily identifiable in the scientific periodicals.
  1. Involvement and Collaboration in the Investigation: Reports related to actions that do not comply with the ethics of publishing are justified, even many years after the manuscript was published. The report must be addressed by the editor. Editors should contact the author and establish communication with the institution or entity related to the report. Correction, retraction, or other editorial notes should be published as a form of official response to the report complaints.
  2. Fatal Error on Published Manuscript: If the editor or others encountered a fatal error and inaccuracies in the published manuscript, the editor should immediately notify the author and request his/her correction or retraction.

 

 IV. AUTHOR

  1. Writing standard: The author should comply with the following standards for preparing the manuscript to be published in the scientific periodicals:
  • Presenting accurate (using controlled and specific protocols/ procedures), reliable, repeatable, précised, and validated data.
  • Presenting sufficient details and references so as to ease other parties to repeat the research steps or treatment written in the text.
  • Differentiating personal opinion from accurate and objective scientific statement on the basis of references.
  1. Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources: The manuscript should contain research or treatment of original nature. Any citation or adaptation The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others.  Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
  2. Multiple, Repetitive, or Simultaneous Publication: Multiple, repetitive, or simultaneous publication in other publications are things which are objectionable. The manuscript containing same information cannot be submitted or published in other scientific periodicals.
  1. Sources of Information and References: Information from personal communication such as conversations, interviews, correspondence, and discussions or activities that are confidential as a manuscript jury or grant application or research funding schemes, should not be used without written permission from the original source or author.
  1. Hazardous Materials and Human Subjects and Animals: The use of hazardous materials or equipment should be written clearly in the text. All procedures related to human or animal to be approved by the appropriate institutional committee and the approval must be explained in the text. Human rights is an important thing to be fully realized by the author. Authors should clearly explain their actions and statements consent for receiving information of every human subject involved.
  1. Conflict of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work. All sources of financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article should be disclosed, as should the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
  1. Fatal Errors in the Published Manuscript: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editor. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains an error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence to the editor where requested.